(Value per MHz POP is a metric commonly used to compare the values of various spectrum licenses; it is equal to the price of the license divided by the total number of MHz for a given license divided by the population of the licensed market. Paired licenses come with two swaths of spectrum, one each for uplink and downlink, and are typically more valuable than unpaired licenses, which have only one spectrum swath. For detail on the licenses currently up for sale, click here.)

To put that in perspective, in the last major spectrum auction, held in 2008, spectrum values leveled off at $1.22 per MHz POP. And while the bidding is blind – we don’t know which companies currently hold the top slot for which licenses – rest assured that Verizon and AT&T are near the top of that list. Smartphone penetration and data usage have grown stunningly over the past 6 years, and the top wireless carriers are willing to pay (almost) any price to ensure they can continue to meet demand. Without adequate spectrum, they simply won’t be able to keep up.

What about the Grid?

In my current role, as a smart grid communications analyst, I can’t help but wonder what happened to the FCC’s oft-discussed plans to allocate spectrum to electric utilities for smart grid connectivity. Proceeds from the current auction will go to support build out of a nationwide public safety communications network at 700 MHz; public safety organizations were awarded those licenses, free of charge, a few years ago. The so-called FirstNet initiative is expected to provide interoperable communications for first responders (police, fire, EMTs) – but apparently, the FCC doesn’t consider the electric grid to be critical to public safety.

Some utilities have owned their own spectrum licenses in the past – but that was the exception, not the rule. San Diego Gas & Electric had plans to build its own communications network using wireless communications services (WCS) spectrum a few years back, but it opted instead to sell the licenses for the San Diego market to AT&T. Many utilities across the United States have used unlicensed 900 MHz spectrum for their smart meter deployments, and many cooperative utilities own licenses for the 220 MHz band. Smart grid networking system vendor Tantalus offers a system that leverages that spectrum for connectivity in difficult terrain.

But utilities have been left on the sidelines as the government works to maximize spectrum utilization, promote rural broadband access, and ensure public safety organizations have the communications they need in times of disaster. But a resilient, reliable, efficient power grid plays a major role in our nation’s ability to respond to natural and man-made disasters. That would seem to be worthy of dedicated spectrum.

There is another delay in the rollout of smart electric and gas meters in Great Britain. The deployment of more than 50 million meters was expected to begin in the fall of 2015, but now that starting date could be up to a year later, meaning the fall of 2016.

The delay comes as the entity in charge of the communications system, known as the Data Communications Company (DCC), has said it is not feasible to meet the fall 2015 start date. The DCC, which is run by outsourcing vendor Capita, blames the delay on U.K. government officials who changed the specifications that required redesigns for parts of the systems. The delay is expected to add an additional $140 million to the expected $17 billion cost of the multiyear project.

This new delay follows an earlier postponement announced in 2013. This new delay could mean that the mandatory completion target year of 2020 will not be met. However, the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) maintains that the deadline will still be met.

Pushback for Vendors

For the meter vendors and technology providers involved, like Sensus, Landis+Gyr, and Trilliant, the new delay pushes out their delivery cycles and could negatively affect their financial pictures as well.

So far, the other large European smart meter deployment in France (as noted in Navigant Research’s report, Smart Meters) is still on schedule, with the installation of the first 3 million meters expected to begin sometime in the third quarter of 2015.

No doubt there is plenty of frustration among the parties involved in the British project, but what they plan to do is undeniably complex. Connecting one type of smart meter, electric for instance, poses enough of a challenge, but connecting both an electric and a natural gas meter at the same time and expecting the communications elements to run smoothly is asking a lot. Further delays, or at least a speed bump or two, are more than likely.

International marine construction companies are seeing a bonanza of new projects as countries around the world approve massive new terminals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) – for imports in most cases, and for exports from North America, Australia, and some Southeast Asian countries. Altogether, this frenzy of port building could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade as seaborne trade in LNG climbs to meet spiraling demand, particularly in the energy-hungry countries of China, India, and other Asian nations.

Total deliveries of LNG were flat in 2013 compared to 2012, according to the BG Group, but this masks pent-up demand, as producers in the United States are ramping up export capacity and importing countries are scrambling to build import terminals. BG Group forecasts that worldwide LNG demand is expected to increase at a rate of 5% annually through 2025, with much higher rates in the developing countries of Asia.

North America

In September, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) gave final approval to the Cove Point LNG facility, overruling the objections of environmental groups and bringing to four the number of U.S. export terminals officially approved and under construction. All told, 14 terminals are seeking approval by federal regulators in the United States, on the Gulf Coast, the East Coast, and the Pacific Northwest. The Northwest facilities, in particular, face fierce opposition from environmentalists opposed to the increased fracking that large quantities of U.S. exports will entail. With big potential markets waiting not only across the Pacific, but also in Europe, U.S. oil & gas companies and their representatives in Washington, D.C. are eager for more export capacity to come online. There are also at least a dozen LNG terminals proposed along the coast of British Columbia.

Europe

With unrest in Ukraine giving rise to fears of disruptions of natural gas supplies from Russia, which provides 30% of Europe’s natural gas, European governments and companies are scrambling to build new import facilities. Paradoxically, with international supplies limited and with Japan, which relies more heavily on imported natural gas for its energy supply than any other country, soaking up much of the available supply at inflated prices, imports to Europe have declined in the last couple of years. The Gate terminal on the North Sea coast near Rotterdam was built with the support of the Dutch government to maintain the Netherlands’ status as a regional gas hub. It is now running at 10% of capacity, according to The Economist.

Nevertheless, imports from the United States are sure to increase, and the European Union sees the construction of new import terminals as a critical matter of regional energy security. Lithuania, for example, is due to open a massive new floating terminal this year or in early 2015. New terminals are especially important along Europe’s vulnerable southeastern coast, as currently countries in the area are essentially captive customers to Russia’s Gazprom.

The biggest building boom is underway in China, where three import new terminals came online in 2013 and at least two more are expected begin operation before the end of this year. Already, half of the world’s capacity for regasification (the conversion of LNG to conventional natural gas, for transport by pipeline) is located in Asia.

“China’s imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are growing at a record pace,” reported Reuters earlier this year, “as it aims to use cleaner fuels to cut smog in big cities, creating a powerful new source of demand that has the potential to reshape the market for the super-chilled gas.” China’s LNG imports grew 35% in the first quarter of this year compared to the same period in 2013.

Meanwhile, new production is emerging from Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Also, Singapore, which sits at the mouth of the Strait of Malacca, through which passes more than half of the world’s seaborne LNG, has formed ambitious plans to be the LNG trading hub for Southeast and East Asia.

These LNG terminals tend to cost around $10 billion apiece. It’s a good time to be in the business of building them.

Japan and South Korea have emerged as leaders in smart grid technology development and deployments. On a recent trip to East Asia, I noted some similarities and some marked differences between the two countries’ approaches and styles.

At Korean Smart Grid Week in Seoul, I spoke about global demand response (DR) trends. The Expo hall for the conference was as big as any I’ve seen, including large players like Korean Electric Company (KEPCO), Samsung, and LG exhibiting enormous booths and showing off cutting-edge technologies. There were also a plethora of smaller companies and startups displaying their innovations to challenge the status quo and create the next-generation electric grid.

Next, I traveled to Jeju Island, the so-called “Hawaii of Korea.” I got to enjoy the palm trees and volcanic landscape only by bus as we traveled to the Smart Grid Information Center, where KEPCO laid out its vision of the grid of the (not too distant) future.

Then we caught a quick ferry ride to tiny Gapa Island, which is only about 1 square mile in size but has an immense amount of solar, wind, and energy storage packed into a microgrid test bed, complete with a state-of-the-art operation center.

All of the Above

Next I embarked for Tokyo. Japan is undertaking an “all of the above” energy strategy after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in 2011. Restarting the country’s nuclear plants is still on the table, but Japanese companies and government agencies are also deregulating the retail electricity market and designing opportunities for renewables, energy efficiency, DR, and energy storage.

Both countries, and the companies within them, have a laser focus on energy storage as a key solution, which is not surprising given their level of technological advancement. Grid-scale energy storage is still a few years away in the United States, but Japanese and South Korean vendors are intent on leapfrogging Western suppliers and exporting their expertise.

Hare and Tortoise

The two countries’ business cultures, however, are quite divergent. South Korean companies tend to take an aggressive, American-style approach to forming a plan, executing on it, and tweaking it along the way. For instance, the country opened its DR market in November after a relatively short design phase, and U.S. provider EnerNOC has already entered the fray.

Japan, on the other hand, has been studying DR for a few years and it will take a couple more years of pilot programs until the market is ready. Japanese firms tend to take a much more measured approach to development, trying to perfect the model before setting it free. In the long term, both methods may work; but in the short term, the real action is in South Korea.